God and Morality

For such a long period of time, there have been various disputes and revelations that oppose the existence of a God, or Gods, and its importance in the human world. Back in the ancient days, this subject has been one of the most controversial topics in the dispute and deabates over the existence and significance of the Gods in the existence of humanity. As for many philosophers who are either believers and non-believers of God, this main issue has served as the main venue for their wisdom and profound point-of-view that draws deeper explanations in support or critic of the true meaning of God in human life.

In the modern world, the existence of God, or Gods, still depicts two different sides of stories, which mainly comes from two different orientations with that of the theists, the believers of God, and atheists, the non-believers. For that matter, this essay would primarily focus on the debate about the existence of God. Using the standpoint and statement of William Lane Craig that justifies the existence of God and Morality, these paper would primarily present a clear agumentative response to that of Craigs’s explanation about God and Morality, using the standpoint of Socrates in (Euthypro) and Nietzsche in (Beyond Good and Evil).

Widely known as a philosopher and religious expert, Craig believes that God portrays a significant meaning in the lives of people and in his existence in the world. In one of his debate statement against Dr. Tooley, Craig justifies the existence of God and its true meaning of holiness through means of associating God with most of the intangible things in this world that requires deeper understanding and explanation, like the universe, life and death. As a theist and a believer himself Craig truthfully believes that God provides the best explanation about the objective moral values in this world.

In most of his argument, Craig evidently stated that without God, there are no moral values. Thoughout his statement, Craig provides definite arguments that would connect and justify the existence of God to the significant meanining of morality in the human way of life. Craig believes that without God, there is no chance that objective moral values could be formulated and developed among the Homo Sapiens, as opposed to the atheist’s views with regard to the origin of life.

More so, Craig stated that though the fact that objective moral values exist, as people broadly know about it, there is no doubt that morality signifies the existence of God, which entails the same notion of many atheists that defines objective moral values as an explanation that could be linked to the existence of God. Probable Argumentative Response of Socrates Socrates’ is widely known as a reliable Ancient Greek Philosopher whose standpoint and argumentative responses to other people’s belief is fundamentally set to give a deeper picture of the issue or subject.

As for the argumentative statement of Craig that draws a definite connection between the objective moral values and existence of God, Socrates’ would most probably respond to the true meaning of objective moral values in the life of people. Given the fact that objective moral values exist in this world, the meaning of morality could vary through different orientations and cultural backgrounds of the people. With the fact the people around the world pertain and embrace different set of distinct cultural belief, defining morality and/or objective moral values is vague to actually relate it with God’s sacred existence.

For instance, there are numerous groups of people that accepts certain actions and beliefs that are not socially acceptable in some conservative socities. In this matter, it would be difficult to define what is morally wrong and acceptable that could mirror the true existence of God and importance of religion in the life of everybody. More so, due to the fact that God is considered as the source of right and wrong, Socrates would arguably respond to Craig’s statement by questioning the genuine essence of good and moral among the actions of people.

For instance, people, as a rationale being, defining what is good and moral is as simple as acting in the most positive way that would help others and does not violate the law of goodness. Does God command things because they are good or moral, or they are good and moral because it’s according to God’s command? In a theist’s point-of-view, abortion is morally wrong, as it involves killing of the unborn lives. However, if people would look at it in a more objective moral value, it is as simple as standing to become an effective way in controlling over population especially in countries that are over-populated.

Thus, objective moral values could be cited from varying standpoin, which could not be solely bounded in aspect of Religion and God. More so, people, as logical beings, have their own way of thinking and perception that could define good and objective moral values according to what they personally believe is acceptable. Nietzsche’s Probable Response As a great Philosopher, Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche himself believes that morality and goodness that is dictated by the religion and/or accoding to the teachings of Gods only mirrors a slave-like morality among the people, as rational inidividual.

As for the statement of William Lane Craig, it is more likely that Nietzsche would respond adversely and condemen the notion that God’s existence is justifiable through objective moral values. Known as an atheist or non-believer himself, Nietzsche would respond to Craig’s statement by criticizing that morality and goodness drawn by religious teachings do not entail significant meaning, as it only deprived the right of people to think for their selves and define what is morally right and acceptable.

From the perspective of this philosopher, morality has been the basis of people characterized to be “intellectually shallow” in going against and judgin the act of other people. There is a need to use what is perceived to be morally right and wrong agains the actions and behavior of other people in order to differentiate theirselves and to prove their worthiness among the others. To a certain extent, this serves as the standards upon which everyone could be seen to be equal before God.

The presence of a standard is then a means for them to measure and maintain equality in God’s eyes. In the formulation and maintenance of these standards, there is a need for the God and the principles that are attached to what should be the right and the wrong. Where there is the existence of God, the morality that pervades mankind also exists. This is because of the dependence of the latter with that of the former and a seemingly strong hold of the former to the latter.

Conclusion The attachment of morality with that of God would have to be perceived as a means of justifying the existence of God in the lives of the people. However, it is seen that there is still a possibility of having a moral set of standards even without having a God for it to come into being. It is quite unfair to use morality as the sole basis of having a God for there are several other factors to which the existence of a Supreme Being is warranted.

In the argument of Craig, the supporting details shows that there is indeed the connection of the morally right to God and that these are simply formulated by mankind in order to discern what is right from what is wrong. However, the conclusion says otherwise and the reasons for such have weak foundations. Works Cited Craig, William Lane. Craig-Tooley Debate: Classic Debate on the Existence of God. 14 December 2002. Leadership U. 24 June 2009 <http://www. origins. org/articles/craig_tooley_1. html>.